One large, strategic question is at the center of the presidential race: In order to beat President Barack Obama, does Mitt Romney need to be an exceptional candidate or merely an acceptable one?

For much of the campaign, Romney and his team have operated according to the acceptability theory. Obama, in this view, is a vulnerable incumbent who will eventually be undone by a stagnant economy. With 54 percent of likely voters already agreeing Obama does not deserve re-election, Romney (the argument goes) just needs to be a viable alternative — an imaginable president — in order to defeat an incumbent in the process of failing.

Romney’s convention speech was the triumph of this theory. It was designed for reassurance, not persuasion. It emphasized Romney’s admirable background and values. It was almost entirely devoid of policy arguments, unexpected outreach or effective attacks.

It was unambitious for a reason — because acceptability seemed the safest policy.

But the approach didn’t work. Following the party conventions, it became clear Obama has a hidden source of electoral buoyancy. Many Americans don’t fully blame him for economic conditions and seem resigned to a new normal of high unemployment and stagnant growth.

It is a historical paradox of the first order — the candidate of hope made viable by diminished expectations. But Obama, it is now evident, will not fall by force of gravity.

This was the broader significance of Romney’s performance in the first debate. It was more than an excellent technical performance. It was an admission that acceptability is not a sufficient strategy. For the first time in the general election, Romney seemed to realize the presidency will not be awarded by default — defeating Obama will require exceptional skills, strategy and ambition.

Romney was on the offensive from first to last, dominating the tone, content and flow of the debate. This seemed more than aggressiveness; something approaching authority. Romney’s attacks were genially relentless. Instead of merely criticizing Obamacare or the Dodd-Frank financial legislation, he dissected them. His fired statistics like shotgun pellets — 23 million unemployed, 1 in 6 in poverty, 50 percent of college graduates can’t find jobs. His critique was organized by a memorable theme — “trickle-down government.” (Obama’s apparent theme — a “new economic patriotism” — went entirely unexplained.)

Romney’s effective indictment of Obama’s record managed something difficult and important. It simultaneously steadied the confidence of Republicans in their own candidate while allowing Romney to adopt a more moderate, bipartisan tone on taxes, education and entitlements. This is politics successfully conducted at a high degree of difficulty.

Romney did not announce or emphasize unexpected policy — which generally is not the purpose of debates. But his summaries of existing approaches were crisp and comprehensive. He not only pronounced, he explained.

Romney constantly and seamlessly humanized his arguments. He even outlined a philosophy of government that includes compassion for the needy — probably a fragment of his prepared response to the 47 percent challenge that never came.

Romney prepared for the debate intensely, and it showed — which means it didn’t show. He had not only practiced his material but internalized and mastered it, leaving a composite impression of ease and authenticity. He seemed eager to make the points he was primed to make — pleased to be finally answering months of accumulated attack ads.

Obama had not debated in years, and it also showed. He is a political orchid, thriving best in a hot, wet atmosphere of praise. Presented with serious, sustained criticism, he first seemed puzzled that his idiom wasn’t working properly. Then came the avalanche of tweeted adjectives: annoyed, grim, unhappy, disengaged, glaring, defensive.

The best news for Romney is this: He rose to the most difficult moment. When the need was greatest, and the stage was largest, he was exceptional. It is one of the things presidents do.

ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for
following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and
comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are
automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some
comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules,
click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.

Comment viewing options

Sort Comments

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Romney has a habit of ‘not speaking eloquently’ which causes me to doubt his every word.
His statement in the debate was that the U.S. has 23M out of work which at 8% would make our working force at approximately 290M people; which of course has not been spoken eloquently.

If he cannot apply simple mathematics to his remarks why should I accept any figures he spawns? In fact one never knows, including him, what’s going to come out of his mouth.
For political expediency he has become the Master Flip-Flopper.

Dude, you go ahead and believe the pundits if it eases your conservative mind. I guess you also believe the polls as well. It all simplifies things for you but not to worry Obama will care for you too unlike the 47% Romney has no use for.